The present invention relates to Mobile IP network technology. More specifically, this invention relates to mechanisms for achieving route optimization in a Mobile IP environment while maintaining location privacy.
Mobile IP is a protocol which allows laptop computers or other mobile computer units (referred to as “Mobile Nodes” herein) to roam between various sub-networks at various locations—while maintaining internet and/or WAN connectivity. Without Mobile IP or a related protocol, a Mobile Node would be unable to stay connected while roaming through various sub-networks. This is because the IP address required for any node to communicate over the internet is location specific. Each IP address has a field that specifies the particular sub-network on which the node resides. If a user desires to take a computer which is normally attached to one node and roam with it so that it passes through different sub-networks, it cannot use its home base IP address. As a result, a business person traveling across the country cannot merely roam with his or her computer across geographically disparate network segments or wireless nodes while remaining connected over the internet. This is not an acceptable state-of-affairs in the age of portable computational devices.
To address this problem, the Mobile IP protocol has been developed and implemented. One implementation of Mobile IP is described in RFC 2002 of the Network Working Group, C. Perkins, Ed., October 1996. Mobile IP is also described in the text “Mobile IP Unplugged” by J. Solomon, Prentice Hall. Both of these references are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties and for all purposes.
The Mobile IP process and environment as implemented in Mobile Ipv4 are illustrated in FIG. 1. As shown there, a Mobile IP environment 2 includes the internet (or a WAN) 4 over which a Mobile Node 6 can communicate remotely via mediation by a Home Agent 8 and a Foreign Agent 10. Typically, the Home Agent and Foreign Agent are routers or other network connection devices performing appropriate Mobile IP functions as implemented by software, hardware, and/or firmware. A particular Mobile Node (e.g., a laptop computer) plugged into its home network segment connects with the internet through its designated Home Agent. When the Mobile Node roams, it communicates via the internet through an available Foreign Agent. Presumably, there are many Foreign Agents available at geographically disparate locations to allow wide spread internet connection via the Mobile IP protocol. Note that it is also possible for the Mobile Node to register directly with its Home Agent.
As shown in FIG. 1, Mobile Node 6 normally resides on (or is “based at”) a network segment 12 which allows its network entities to communicate over the internet 4 through Home Agent 8 (an appropriately configured router denoted R2). Note that Home Agent 8 need not directly connect to the internet. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, it may be connected through another router (a router R1 in this case). Router R1 may, in turn, connect one or more other routers (e.g., a router R3) with the internet.
Now, suppose that Mobile Node 6 is removed from its home base network segment 12 and roams to a remote network segment 14. Network segment 14 may include various other nodes such as a PC 16. The nodes on network segment 14 communicate with the internet through a router which doubles as Foreign Agent 10. Mobile Node 6 may identify Foreign Agent 10 through various solicitations and advertisements which form part of the Mobile IP protocol. When Mobile Node 6 engages with network segment 14, Foreign Agent 10 relays a registration request to Home Agent 8 (as indicated by the dotted line “Registration”). The Home and Foreign Agents may then negotiate the conditions of the Mobile Node's attachment to Foreign Agent 10. For example, the attachment may be limited to a period of time, such as two hours. When the negotiation is successfully completed, Home Agent 8 updates an internal “mobility binding table” which specifies the care-of address (e.g., a collocated care-of address or the Foreign Agent's IP address) in association with the identity of Mobile Node 6. Further, the Foreign Agent 10 updates an internal “visitor table” which specifies the Mobile Node address, Home Agent address, etc. In effect, the Mobile Node's home base IP address (associated with segment 12) has been shifted to the Foreign Agent's IP address (associated with segment 14).
Now, suppose that Mobile Node 6 wishes to send a message to a corresponding node 18 from its new location. A message from the Mobile Node is then packetized and forwarded through Foreign Agent 10 over the internet 4 and to Corresponding Node 18 (as indicated by the dotted line “packet from MN”) according to a standard internet protocol. If Corresponding Node 18 wishes to send a message to Mobile Node—whether in reply to a message from the Mobile Node or for any other reason—it addresses that message to the IP address of Mobile Node 6 on sub-network 12. The packets of that message are then forwarded over the internet 4 and to router R1 and ultimately to Home Agent 8 as indicated by the dotted line (“packet to MN(1)”). From its mobility binding table, Home Agent 8 recognizes that Mobile Node 6 is no longer attached to network segment 12. It then encapsulates the packets from Corresponding Node 18 (which are addressed to Mobile Node 6 on network segment 12) according to a Mobile IP protocol and forwards these encapsulated packets to a “care of” address for Mobile Node 6 as shown by the dotted line (“packet to MN(2)”). The care-of address may be, for example, the IP address of Foreign Agent 10. Foreign Agent 10 then strips the encapsulation and forwards the message to Mobile Node 6 on sub-network 14. The packet forwarding mechanism implemented by the Home and Foreign Agents is often referred to as “tunneling.”
RFC 3775, entitled “Mobility Support in IPv6,” published in June, 2004, by D. Johnson et al discloses a protocol which allows nodes to remain reachable while roaming in IPv6. This RFC defines the entities of Home Agent (HA), Mobile Node (MN) and Correspondent Node (CN), and describes the Mobile IP registration process with reference to an IPv6 environment. This draft is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
In order to optimize the route via which packets are routed from the Correspondent to the Mobile Node, it is desirable to enable the Corresponding Node to communicate directly with the Mobile Node. This is generally accomplished in two different ways, as set forth in RFC3775 “Mobility Support in IPv6.” First, a tunnel between the Corresponding Node and the Mobile Node may be established by the Corresponding Node. Second, the Mobile Node may send a Binding Update message to the Corresponding Node to enable the Corresponding Node to send packets directly to the Mobile Node.
As described above, RFC3775 “Mobility Support in IPv6,” specifies a method for performing route optimization between a Mobile Node and a Correspondent Node. During the disclosed route optimization process, the Mobile Node provides its care-of address (i.e., location on the foreign network) to the Correspondent Node via a Binding Update message. In contrast to the registration process that is performed via a Foreign Agent in Mobile Ipv4, registration is performed via a co-located care-of address of the Mobile Node in Mobile IPv6. In other words, the care-of address is associated with the Mobile Node rather than a separate entity. This enables the Correspondent Node to send data packets directly to the Mobile Node without routing traffic to the Home Agent. While this is desirable for route optimization, this method does not preserve location privacy of the Mobile Node.
Generally, a Service Provider attempts to provide optimum service to its customers.
As a result, route optimization is a desirable feature, enabling data traffic to be transmitted in an efficient manner. Thus, eliminating the Home Agent from the traffic route between a Mobile Node and Correspondent Node is desirable. However, disclosing the location of the Mobile Node to the Correspondent Node is considered an unacceptable loss of privacy to their customers.
In view of the above, it would be beneficial if route optimization could be accomplished without sacrificing location privacy. Moreover, it would be beneficial if such an optimization scheme could be applied in a Mobile IPv6 environment, as well as be compatible with other versions of Mobile IP.